Patch 3 What and When? - Page 2

nweaver · #11 January 19th, 2001, 12:21 AM

Oops.

The problem is that even if limited resources worked, it simply means that one has to play a crystolic race, and one just converts to solar generation facilities as planets become unproductive.

[This message has been edited by nweaver (edited 18 January 2001).]

Husky65 · #12 January 19th, 2001, 02:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
I know that Richard is better suited for this but.... take it easy!!! MM just got a game that has been selling like crazy! Aaron has been working on it night and day and took some time off to relax and recharge. The next patch will come when it comes.

Pretty defensive there aren't you?

If you read my post I asked when the next patch is due and what we can expect to be in it, in no way have I criticised the game (however having paid for it I have every right to do so if I choose to).

Now, if someone could answer the original question rather than attempt to defend the game against criticisms that I didn't make I would appreciate it.

BTW you might also wish to show how the amount of games sold has any negative impact on Aarons workload (since you raised it), Shrapnel handle the sales.

Instar · #13 January 19th, 2001, 03:47 AM

The more people buying and playing the game increase the volume of reports about the game, bug or otherwise. So if 100 people report bugs, instead of 10, thats a lot more. (BUt I'm all for the bigger number, more sales is good)

gbraley · #14 January 19th, 2001, 01:00 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
You played Version 1.19 with large universe lots of computer players, a standard race with computer bonus on high? try that and see if you can kick the AI around so easily

Yes, I've posted before that I get a better challenge from the AI with a standard race. I only play large universes and with max computer bonuses. And yes, I can kick the AI around quite easily. I wish that amounted to bragging, but I can assure you that it isn't.

Scott

jowe01 · #15 January 19th, 2001, 03:00 PM

Same opinion as gbraley. Even on hardest setting and role-playing that my people do not allow me to use mines (but accept their use by others), with the Darloks, the new Sergetti and the Earth alliance... the AIs are still a walkover. I admit that if they attack me in the very beginning and I am unlucky, they sometimes kill me, but never if I survive the first 20 turns. Their fragmented fleet tactics and their failure to follow through on attacks just makes it impossible for them to create a challenge.

So I find the question when the next patch will approximately be out and especially what issues it will address absolutely valid. If MM, Shrapnell or any of the beta testers regularly (once a week or so) informed us on the status of the next patch(es), people who are interested would be very grateful.

Seawolf · #16 January 19th, 2001, 05:51 PM

ok,

There is a "misunderstanding" goign on about the patches I think. Currently the patchs are for things that are broken. It is possible that AI improvements may be included but I don't think that is the main focus. There are Posts that others have made showing small changes made to the AI files that improve them. You may want to consider using them untill we can get to the AI.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

jowe01 · #17 January 20th, 2001, 02:39 AM

The two main AI issues which I have mentioned (fragmented fleet tactics and failure to follow through on attacks) cannot be mended by tweaking the AI text files. They can only be improved by changing the game code itself. Given the serious limitations which they impose on the gameplay-"fun", I really consider them a priority.

Is the next patch going to address them ? When is it expected to be posted (e.g. is it reasonable to undertake a significant modification of the current txt files ?) ?

Freyland · #18 January 20th, 2001, 03:13 AM

Or how about making the AI actually make use of the diplomacy options? Or making the AI actually make sense in its attitude towards the Player?

We should not have to depend on the kindness and time of others to make the game "better". The game should be good enough to stand on its own, but everyone acknowledges it isn't. Without improvement to the base code of the AI, the game is just a search for intelligent life, obstructed by a bunch of "Neutrals".

I would trade in all of the modifiable options for a game that didn't need them.

Jonathan

------------------
How does he type with his hands over his ears?

Arboris · #19 January 20th, 2001, 03:28 AM

Frankly I find it amazing that we have not had any official word on this board from MM on this matter. I really believe that most people understand that this is long tedious process when it comes to patch a game of this complexity. How many of you have ever had a new patch for a game put out hastily and it created more new problems than the problems it set out to fix?

However I still think a weekly one-paragraph post from the powers that be is not asking too much. Furthermore I believe that most people would walk away satisfied knowing what was being worked on and what they could expect. I would be half as disappointed if I knew right now not to expect an AI enhancement. Then if I were to speculate and hope for weeks and then find out that the latest patch did not address any of the issues that concerned me.

greghacke · #20 January 20th, 2001, 06:53 AM

NigelWulf-
Don't know if you realized it, but Richard (our friendly neighborhood Shrapnel rep) Posts several times a week. As he apparently even plays the game, this is even better than a BS post from some technocrat. You may also note that every week since SE4 was released, he has posted an official statement on direction.